 |
Muhammad
|
|
"It is, however, forbidden to relate things that curse the Prophet or show contempt for his position, in tales, night talk, titbits, stories of the people and their good and bad words, the jests of the brazen and the anecdotes of foolish people. All this kind of thing is forbidden. Some of them are more strongly forbidden than others. Some of them incur punishment."
|
Translated
by Aisha
Abdarrahman Bewley
Part
Four Section
Eight
The sixth case is when the speaker quotes something of this nature from someone else. In this case, one looks at the form his story takes and the context of his words. The judgement about it varies accordingly. It can be seen as belonging to one of four categories: obligatory, recommended, disliked or forbidden. If he reports it by way of testimony and to give information about the speaker, to rebuke him and make known what he has said, out of aversion to it and in order to make other people dislike it and to make the testimony of the one who said it unreliable, it must be taken heed of and the one who does this is praised. This is the case if he quotes it in a book or in an assembly in order to refute the perpetrator and criticise him and in order to carry out his legal obligation regarding the matter. Sometimes it is obligatory for him and sometimes only recommended depending on the state of the one who is relaying what was said and the state of the one from whom it is relayed. If the person who made the original statement is among those from whom knowledge is taken, or who transmit hadiths or give judgement or testimony or fatwas on people's rights, it is obligatory for the one who heard the derogatory statement to repeat what he heard from him and to make people averse to him and to testify against him according to what he has said. Any Muslim Imam who comes to hear what was said must make the man’s disbelief and the corruption of his words clear in order to cut off his harm from the Muslims and establish the due of the Master of the Messengers. This is the case particularly if the man in question is one of those who admonish the masses or teach children. If this is something his heart contains, he is not safe from casting it into their hearts. In such cases, the obligation to deal with him is confirmed by the right of the Prophet and the right of the Shari'a. If the speaker is not someone of this standing, then it is still a specific obligation to establish the due of the Prophet and to protect his honour and help him against harm, whether he is alive or dead. This is a duty for every believer. If someone makes the truth clear, and the case against the detractor is definite and evident, then no one else is obliged to testify but it is still recommended for many people to give testimony against such a person and to help in warning against him. The Salaf agreed that the state of anyone whose reliability in giving hadith is suspect is to be made clear, so it must be even more binding with someone of this nature. Abu Muhammad ibn Abi Zayd was asked whether a witness who has heard something of this nature said in respect of Allah should give testimony. He said that if it is expected that judgement will be effected through his testimony, then the witness should testify. That is what should happen if it is known that the judge does not think that execution would ensue as a result of his testimony. The speaker should be asked to repent and should be disciplined. The witness then gives testimony and must do so. As for being allowed to relate these words for any intention other than in these two instances, I do not think that it should be included in this subject at all. One does not amuse oneself at the expense of the honour of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, or soil one's mouth by saying bad things about him to anyone, either mentioning or quoting someone else's words without an intention for something allowed in the Shari'a. As for the previous aims, they vary between the obligatory and the recommended. Allah relays the statements of those who forged lies against Him and against His Messengers in His Book in order to reject their words and warn about their disbelief, to threaten them, and refute them by what He has revealed in His perfect Book. Similarly examples of this are found in the sound hadith of the Prophet. The Salaf and later Imams of guidance agreed that it was permissible to use stories about disbelief and heretics in their books and assemblies to make them clear to people and to refute that sort of thing. Although it has been reported that Ahmad ibn Hanbal objected to al-Harith ibn Asad al-Muhasibi doing this,[40] Ahmad ibn Hanbal himself did something similar when he refuted the Jahmiyya[41] and those who said that the Qur’an was created.[42] It is permitted to relate this sort of thing. It is, however, forbidden to relate things that curse the Prophet or show contempt for his position, in tales, night talk, titbits, stories of the people and their good and bad words, the jests of the brazen and the anecdotes of foolish people. All this kind of thing is forbidden. Some of them are more strongly forbidden than others. Some of them incur punishment. If someone says something unintentionally without realising the weight of his words or something he would not normally say or words which are not offensive in themselves and he does not approve of them or find them correct, he is restrained from it and forbidden to repeat what he has said. If he is put right by some disciplinary action, that is commendable. If what he says is offensive in itself, then the action taken should be more severe. It is related that a man asked Malik about someone who had said that the Qur'an was created. Malik said about the questioner, "He is an unbeliever, so kill him." The man said, "But I related it from someone else." Malik said, "We heard it from you." Malik did this as a means of restriction and accusation of error. The proof is that he did not actually carry out the execution. If a relater in this kind of instance is suspected of being the real author of what he says while ascribing it to someone else or it is his habit to do this, or it appears that he admires the statement he is conveying, or he is enthusiastic about such things and makes light of them, or he memorizes things like this and seeks them out, or he relates poems satirizing the Prophet and cursing him, then the judgement of this person is the same as that of someone who actually curses himself. He is punished for what he said and the fact that he ascribes it to someone else does not help him. He is killed immediately and dispatched to his appointed place in Hell. Abu 'Ubayd al-Qasim ibn Salam said about someone who had memorized half of a line in which the Prophet was satirized, "It constitutes disbelief." One of those who wrote on the subject of consensus mentioned that the consensus of the Muslims was to forbid the transmission of anything in which the Prophet was satirized or to write or read such things. They should be left where they are found without being touched. May Allah have mercy on our god-fearing Salaf who guarded their deen! They excluded this sort of thing from the hadiths about the raids and from the sira and left out its transmission except for a few things which were not too offensive which they mentioned in order to show the revenge of Allah on those who said them and how those who forged lies against the Prophet were punished for their wrong action. Abu 'Ubayd
al-Qasim ibn Salam was careful regarding the satirical poems of the Arabs
he quoted in his books. He alluded to the name of any person satirized
by a metric equivalent of his name to keep his deen innocent and
to preserve himself from being a partner, in what was said, in criticising
anyone by his quotation or its publication. How much more should this
be the case with someone who attacks the honour of the Master of Men,
may Allah bless him and grant him peace? |
